Hi Darkmoebius, I guess we would rather need graphs from spectrometers to show energy storage and resonance built-up in tonearm wands to illustrate the physical issues I was talking about.
Water decay and frequency sweeps will do for cross-overs and speaker building, but not here for tonearm/cartridge issues (or in case they really would do, the respective tonearm's performance would be so poor that it is hardly worth discussing at all...).
My sonic descriptions (I knew that would be coming back against me.... ;-)....) were done to "illustrate" the sonic results of the bearing rigidity and the mechanical problems in linear trackers.
Otherwise you will find very few sonic statements in any of my posts.
From my point of view (sorry for personalizing again..) the mechanical model and the resulting issues (and the lack of addressing designs..) are so obvious that its kind of frustrating. |
Dertonarm wrote, "The day a linear tracker shows up which does address the obvious issues of the mechanical model, I am in the first group to buy it. And I will do so before any "sound report" or sonic description by anybody."
Bravo! I will join you if I can afford this potential design, surely will be expensive! Thanks for sticking to mechanic discussion. No, you did not spoil the party. In fact, you have lively up the party. The great filmmaker John Cassavetes once wrote to a writer friend, Energy bursts out of your writing. I've been thinking about you. The unknown adventurer. Blasting forth through concrete. Blast them. Then love them. Then blast them again... You see, the blasting and loving is the same thing. Your passion for audio and science is applauded.
The Thales arm and the new sibling Simplicity arm look to have this potential but I do have concern about its extra bearings for the guiding motions to achieve geometric accuracy and hopefully not in the classic case of when the cure is worse than the disease. Regardless, I applaud innovative thinking.
Personally I have given up on the perfect tonearm. I like both genres, as long as people don't tell me their only reason for not liking pivot arm is because a linear tracker tracks more like the cutter head. Maybe I should just go digital. :-)
Just kidding!
This has been an exhilarating thread!
________________
|
03-15-10: Dertonarm
Hi Darkmoebius...
My sonic descriptions (I knew that would be coming back against me.... ;-)....) were done to "illustrate" the sonic results of the bearing rigidity and the mechanical problems in linear trackers. Aaaaah, gotcha, now I understand where you were coming from. |
Too bad the thread returns to generalizations & celebration of received wisdom. Mechanics is a system of complex variables. While the idea of an absolutely rigid bearing is comforting, in actual use the performance of a long lever arm is the sum of many forces including its own rigidity & resonant behavior independent of the bearing. In this regard a short arm surpasses a long one. As regards the low effective vertical mass and long travel of a short linear arm, anyone who has set up a suspension for motocross knows that a properly set up long-travel suspension is consistent with stability in tracking bumps. While yaw in some air bearing designs may cause errors in tangency, solutions to the problem are not inconceivable. For example in Ladegaard/Trans-Fi design, the mating surface of the slider is a wing of large 14 sq. in. surface area, whose long parallelism with air manifold enforces minimal yaw--together with minimal turbulence attendant with low air pressure.
This is not to suggest that this arm is the last word in design. Doubtless each type has strengths and weaknesses of theory and operation. Perhaps it is more interesting to consider the strengths and weaknesses of specific implementations than of abstractions. For example, a P2 may be nice, but I believe there are around six mating solder/mechanical joints in signal path through arm wand. Sacrebleu! |
I have finally assembled all of the pieces for my conversion from the ET-2 to the Fidelity Research FR64s. The FR64s I bought was in beautiful condition with the original box and all parts and templates. I had a new armboard made for my TNT and had the hole cut for the FR64s at 231.5mm as recommended by Dertonarm instead of the 230mm recommended by the factory. I bought the AQ LeoPard tonearm cable that Dertonarm recommended as well. I originally thought it would not fit in the FR64s but I was just being too timid as it was a tight fit, but fit it did. I did listen for several days with the stock cable and I thought it was pretty good until I installed the LeoPard. The LeoPard simply passes more information through it. I am still tweaking the arm so I am not ready to talk about its sonic virtues in comparison with the ET-2 yet. I just want everyone to know that it is installed and I am getting close. I can tell you that my thoughts on how good the ET-2 sounds have not changed-it is a damn nice sounding tonearm. There is one aspect of the ET-2 that I don't miss and that is the fact that it does not have a true ground. No matter what cables you use and how you fiddle with them, you can never completely eliminate some amount of hum (at least I can't). The ET-2 manual tells you to install a ground wire to one of the ground lugs on the tonearm RCA connector and then run it to the ground connector on your preamp. I don't see that as being any different than the ground you get from the cable itself when it is connected to the tonearm and preamp. Now with the FR64s, I have no hum which is a great thing.
I think there is great potential here, and I will have more to say when I am confident that I have everything dialed in. I am still messing with VTA and I am thinking of changing my loading from 1K to a lower value. |
Mepearson, Grounding is a black art, to say the least, but I suggest that a separate wire from tonearm body to the ground plane in your preamp might very well eliminate at least some of the residual hum you talk about. The ground achieved via the cables only accounts for the signal, not necessarily for the tonearm body. For example, my own RS-!A tonearm is unuseable without such a separate ground wire (hum is dominant), whereas I have never had to ground the Triplanar in this manner, and it is totally hum-free. |
Otherwise you will find very few sonic statements in any of my posts a profound thought for sure....which caused me pause. after i read the above comment i sat for awhile and pondered exactly why it bothered me so much. i have yet to answer that question in my mind. and please assume the only problem here is my own. i do not mean to inhibit idea exchange here or turn the topic into some philosphical exchange. i'm simply relating my perspective. |
If we read Dertonarm's full quote or at least the line before that then it's really not disturbing at all. He wrote:
"My sonic descriptions were done to "illustrate" the sonic results of the bearing rigidity and the mechanical problems in linear trackers. Otherwise you will find very few sonic statements in any of my posts."
I very much appreciate him for not getting into prose of sonic pornography of typical magazine writings. The cause and effect in the design and execution of an audio product are rarely discussed and often veered off into the writer's neurosis. Overall I've been really enjoying this thread from users of all genres of tonearm with their valuable experiences and "sonic results."
____________
|
Hi Dertonarm,
Two C-37's and all of those tapes!! OMG :-) My spouse and I just received 13 Tape Project albums last Friday...we had listened to all of them by late Sunday! We enjoyed sonic bliss weekend - lol.
I'm delighted you've experienced the physical presence and dynamic with analogue cartridge/tonearm that you previously achieved with analogue tape! I'm wondering...do you think, generally, that vinyl possesses the low frequency information that would probably be present in a great tape, i.e. an EQ'd tape used for vinyl mastering that deliberately has the low frequency energy absent? I'm thinking Direct-to-Disc recordings probably have all the musical signal present...
Thanks for your thoughts!
Vbr,
Sam |
Mikelavigne, I certainly want to set one thing straight: I do have strong opinions about sonics, their differences and relations to components and synergy effects.
And could express them.
I just think that it is a waste of time to display them in public. As there are only a small handful of Audiogoners who actually know from first-hand experience me in person, my preferences, taste, background, audio set-up and therefor my subjective perspective and taste in reproduced sound.
For all others would be just empty blah-blah - or more precisely what Hiho said.....
I can relate sonic signatures to technical design features and certain electrical and/or mechanical interactions between components inside an audio chain.
A lot what is posted here on Audiogon by some is nothing more than posing and congratulation each other what fine equipment the other owns and what a nice if troublesome passion this all is.
For me it is about performance and why and how a certain component can (if it has the potential...) can be brought to show off its virtues.
This may sound calvinistic and like cold german technical view to some. |
|
Dertonarm,
i tried my best to not make my post personal in any way....as all your posts have been made with respect and class. i don't mean to cause you to defend or explain yourself.
i just felt that when you posted that comment that it needed to be considered......as at least to me it's just a fundamnetal conflict to stray too far from the enjoyment of music when speaking about gear....however objective we attempt to be about cause and effect.
science serves art but does not define it.
i'm no techie, scientist, or engineer. maybe if i had more grounding in technical perspective i'd feel different.
this is supposed to fun.
best regards, |
Mikelavigne, no problem at all - I just felt that I could clarify a point or two.
This is indeed supposed to be fun, but too many audiophiles do take critic about components they own very personal and too often the components are the center of attention and admiration.
In my point of view there are no such things like "musical or emotionally involving" turntables, amplifiers, cables, cartridges or speakers.
To name them so is almost a contradiction in terms and nothing but a clear proof for the overwhelming attention the audio components do get from most audiophiles.
There are only audio components which do degrade the recorded sound during reproduction.
All do - the better less, the very best very little. |
Hi C1ferrari, it is not limited to direct-to-disc recordings. There are a lot great recording out there which can - tracked with the "right" cartridge/tonearm combination - supply the full bodied sound and physical presence one gets from the better r-t-r machines.
It is rarely achieved and there are only very few combinations of LOMC/tonearms out there which can get you that. And this is related to mechanical synergy effects mainly.
But that would be another thread ..... and for sure would raise strong and widespread antagonism. |
One thing about the tape experience is how locked-in the soundstage is, and the complete lack of strain experienced with the most complex musical passages. This is something I have only seen a few times with LP systems. If you have not experienced what I am talking about, its hard to understand only in the context of vinyl playback. Those who have tape systems know what I mean.
IMO this is an area that all LP systems must strive to perfect. |
"There are only audio components which do degrade the recorded sound during reproduction.
All do - the better less, the very best very little."
Well put. I thought the same for a half century until I came to realize that certain additives and equalizations (tubes and digital processing, to cite examples) had the capability of enhancing playback intelligibility.
This topic, however, deserves its own thread. |
Samujohn, you are right - equalization can (and in pro audio it is a truly mandatory all-present tool) enhance playback intelligibility.
But the result is neither true to the original spirit of high fidelity, nor does it show the real thing - applied on the frequency-band as a whole it just enhances the illusion in a very special way.
I too apply equalization in the very low 2 octaves of the audio band - to adapt woofer response to the room and the respective cabinet. Here it is of the utmost importance and a mandatory for me.
From the upper bass/lower midrange upwards it because hostile territory and does degrade the sound while smoothing the response.
It is a bit curing the sonic demon's with Luzifer's help.....
Eq in audio must be applied with the utmost care - it is tempting for sure, but if applied in higher dose it can and will spoil the whole lunch.
It is very reminiscent of illegal pharmacy in the way it works. |
Agreed. I also venture that tubes are prized by many because they like their gentle, well known, distortions. I often wish I had some tube amp compression in my tiny car, so I could enjoy classical music while commuting. |
03-16-10: Samujohn
Agreed. I also venture that tubes are prized by many because they like their gentle, well known, distortions. Just wait until Atmasphere gets a load of that line! |
Darkmoebius, he's right. Tubes make lower-ordered distortions, much more preferable to the human ear than the higher, odd-ordered distortions of solid state.
Tube distortions can be dramatically reduced by careful design. There's more about that over on the amps/preamps forum :) |
If you want the 2nd order distortions of the better triodes, you can have them with transistors too. It is a matter of design - not tube vs. Transistors. But indeed - this is something for other threads. |
"If you want the 2nd order distortions of the better triodes"
Shades of Bob Carver! Please, please, start a thread. We have much better tools and understanding now than twenty years ago. |
Dear Samujohn, no need for a thread. This has all been covered widely and by better (= more knowledgeable) audiophiles in the early 1980ies and published in the french magazine L'audiophile. After all, transistors started as tubes without vacuum and heater.....
But of course - you are welcome to start a thread about this. Even if there is little to discuss, - the technical tools and schematics are long at hand.
Whether a preamplifier of amplifier is based on tubes or transistors is not the question. You can make a transistor sounding VERY tubbey and a tube-based amplifier with ultra-clean, controlled and extreme detailed sound (and yes - with ultra low tight bass too).
It's a matter of the respective schematic and design and what you want to get - not tubes vs transistors. |
The second order thing about tubes in general is only with SETs- when operating push-pull even-ordered harmonics are cancelled. The nice thing is that you don't get the 5th, 7th and 9th which are unpleasant and used by the ear as loudness cues. |
Thank you for the information Dertonarm. I use the infamous Tact equipment, as well as tubes, computers, etc. Software allows for quick changes in various parameters. My fantasy is to be able to audition specific types and brands of say capacitors, tubes and/or other components in simulated circuits prior to, or in lieu of, purchase. Like going to Mars, this may take a while, but the Ipod proves that radical changes in audio can happen overnight when a vision (everybody wants a portable juke box) meets a technology. |
My tonearm fantasy:
Use a holograph image of a phonograph record and play with software.
My prediction; much sooner that most think, because it will not come through our puny hobby, but through the efforts of archivists funded jointly by government and industry. (Thanks to my daughter, recently in graduate school in said field) |
My tonearm fantasy
How about the Reality.... No audio product has ever succeeded because it was better, only because it was cheaper, smaller, or easier to use. |
03-17-10: Syntax
No audio product has ever succeeded because it was better, only because it was cheaper, smaller, or easier to use. Wilson Audio would beg to differ. Add to that Soundlab, Magneplanar, Krell, Pass Labs, Magico, Gryphon, etc. etc. |
Agree and disagree. WW2 surplus gave us hobby audio. The technology (say reel to reel tapes, radar, transistors, lasers, flight simulators) was developed by governments and major corporations. Audiophiles merely adapted the technology to our own uses. |
Darkmoebius, sorry to say in this context, that Syntax is right. While I do have respect for the brands you listed, the only "field" where the "better" succeeded for several millenia was ( and today it is beginning to change even here....) military/warfare.
In all other aspects related with demand and supply it was always the cheaper - or more easy to access or operate.
But Audiogon is not the forum for philosophy. |
Samujohn, all what you listen - each and everything including the reel-to-reel (invented by AEG) - was developed or its design and research which led to development was requested by military.
Hobby audio was there before WW2 - already alive and kick'in in the roaring twenties.
And yes, - I know the Tact very well and know how tempting it is. But this is not high-fidelity in the sense of the idea or phrase. It is one thing to adapt to room interaction (or better: to try to adapt to it...) but it is a different beast to alter the emitted sound to suit ideas or ideals.
It is a suitable way - no question about that - but it is not high fidelity and it is not an idea I would ever follow. |
Dertonarm raises the basic question: What are we trying to accomplish with all this gear and hardware? I am 65, but when I was 17, I worked in a small, sort of "feeder" studio, some miles from Nashville. We normally used 15ips stereo tape
and recorded both music and radio ads. Our monitors were Altec A7's. I have never had a home system as convincing as our master tapes. A times we received 30ips mono ads for Coca Cola which were dubs from Atlanta. Jesus! The dynamics would make you jump! Would that I could do that at home today.
Home reproduction of prerecorded media is an entirely different situation. Digital is great, but CD's are pitiful. (I plan to throw all mine way soon.) I have little interest in listening to a studio mix on my headphones, except to analyze something. I have a modest size room and budget. I have performed some of the music that I listen to. In reproduction in my home, like most of us, I want to simulate some of the excitement of the original performance. Quad speakers,for example, or LS3/5's have a million obvious shortcomings, but manage to do more to convey the "spirt" of the performance that many full range speakers. I will try to formulate; I try to simulate, not replicate. Deliberate distortion is not bad, it is just a tool like any other. Generally I prefer subtractive distortion to additive, but not always. I enjoy my system, but others with bigger rooms and budgets do better. It's a big hobby. It's about the enjoyment of music -and friends. |
I get the impression that Samujohn speaks for many of us in his last sentence :"...It's about the enjoyment of music -and friends."
I've always wondered how far can we take our technology and for me straight tracking arms were always an expression of that. I've always been a fan of the idea of them, and often more disappointed by them as a result. It is why I run a pivot arm (BTW the Triplanar has such hard bearings in it that they got investigated by the Department of Homeland Security because they use more of them than Boeing...), but regard it as a temporary measure until I see what I want in a straight tracker.
OTOH I've also wondered if there might be a way to solve the problem the other way 'round- by building a cutter head system that cuts radially rather than straight, although in looking at my cutting lathe, seems like it might be quite an undertaking... |
03-17-10: Dertonarm
Darkmoebius, sorry to say in this context, that Syntax is right. While I do have respect for the brands you listed, the only "field" where the "better" succeeded for several millenia was ( and today it is beginning to change even here....) military/warfare.
In all other aspects related with demand and supply it was always the cheaper - or more easy to access or operate. I should have qualified my comment within the framework of high-end audio, where we've gone from 15wpc triode integrated console amplifiers and speakers to 4-box actively filtered preamplifiers and 6-8 ft full range speakers in the last 60 yrs. |
Darkmoebius - and high-end went back all the way to the 1920/30ies and today you have 18W SE-Amplifiers (Lamm, WAVAC etc.) and super expensive full-range drivers and speakers which usually do outperform a Linkwitz-filtered 4 way speaker with a cross-over so complex that what the amplifier actually sees, is not a coil or a "load" but a black hole.....
Same with tonearms (hurray - we are back !!) - there are 30 and 40 year old designs which still can teach most "modern" designs a few things and do. |
03-18-10: Dertonarm
Darkmoebius - and high-end went back all the way to the 1920/30ies and today you have 18W SE-Amplifiers (Lamm, WAVAC etc.) and super expensive full-range drivers and speakers which usually do outperform a Linkwitz-filtered 4 way speaker with a cross-over so complex that what the amplifier actually sees, is not a coil or a "load" but a black hole.....
Same with tonearms (hurray - we are back !!) - there are 30 and 40 year old designs which still can teach most "modern" designs a few things and do. Yes, being a SET and high(ish) efficiency owner, I agree. But a lot of the high-end seems follow an inverse law to what Syntax said above 03-17-10: Syntax
No audio product has ever succeeded because it was better, only because it was cheaper, smaller, or easier to use. I'm not sure, but I don't think there were the financial equivalent(adjusted for inflation) of $300k Goldmund Reference Turntables, $250k Transrotor Argos TT, $700k Wisdom Audio Infinite Grand speakers, $500k Moon Audio Titan speakers, $375k Goldmund Telos amplifer, $255k Wavac SH-833 amplifier or anything like this website sellsSeems to me that the highest end has gotten more expensive, larger, and not much easier to use. Some of the components at the link above don't seem too easy to setup or use. In general, though, Syntax's quote applies to just about everything technological - TV's, computers, commodity audio, cameras, etc. |
Dear Darkmoebius, in teh early 1930ies you could order from H.H.Scott a "Quaranta". If you did so - and included all possible features including your own recording device with cutting lathe... - it would have cost you US$5000+ in the early 1930ies.
Compared in status and buying power of the day it surpasses anything that is marketing today just to fulfill the demand of some east asian audio collectors to show off their wealth within their peer group.
There were always options to spend real big money on audio. You could get AEG/Telefunken/Siemens or ERPI WE Mirrorphonic to built and set-up a cinema-like audio set-up in your private home. Things like these were done both sides of the Atlantic in the years between the 2 big wars and they did cost more than any of us could possibly imagine.
The world was there before any of us - there is nothing new today - just more hype, less seriousness (in design - not in talking about...), less education and less background in audio. |
Darkmoebius "Seems to me that the highest end has gotten more expensive, larger, and not much easier to use. Some of the components at the link above don't seem too easy to setup or use."
Agreed. I used to enjoy ogling ultra expensive gears, much like pornography to audiophiles. But I no longer get that kind of pleasure anymore and much of what I see is vulgar and decadent. If a piece of gear is art, I still see it as functional art that should still serve a purpose, much like a well designed architecture. But I am seeing less of the functional part and much like a jumble of expensive parts put together to impress than to express. Very soon we will have a paper plate manufactured by Tiffany.
I don't have problem with people enjoying them much like people looking at luxury car magazines. And once a while there are few products that are innovative and really have something to say and keep my interest. For the most part, I don't even have the urge to go to a dealer to check it out in person. And not to mention confronting the snobbery of most dealers. Again, it's just me. Maybe I am getting old...
Sorry to be so off topic. My apologies.
__________
|
Their list of amps is incomplete :)
It does seem as if a lot of 'advances' in technology are a sort of race to the bottom: mp3, and CDs to name a couple we are all familiar with. Many of the changes I saw in 'hifi' receivers over the years (I used to run a service shop) were changes made simply to reduce shipping and assembly costs.
Other technologies are moves forward, like when overhead valves supplanted side valve (flathead) technology in internal combustion engines. |
We oldsters were so lucky to have dynakit, KLH and so on to give us a taste of what the rich had with McIntosh,Bozak,Marantz........
We also got lucky with stereo as a standard, with tons of recordings already available (on tape) in the format prior to the development of stereo records. Stereo on a five or seven channel home theater setup sounds confused and less than inspiring. I watch DVD concerts on occasion, but generally finish with the CD copy in my audio room. We need to convert a Steve Jobs to quality audio recording. Perhaps we could send Dave Wilson.
But then again, I am preaching to the choir. |
03-18-10: Dertonarm
Dear Darkmoebius, in teh early 1930ies you could order from H.H.Scott a "Quaranta". If you did so - and included all possible features including your own recording device with cutting lathe... - it would have cost you US$5000+ in the early 1930ies. Yowsa, that's a few mill in today's dollars! There were always options to spend real big money on audio. You could get AEG/Telefunken/Siemens or ERPI WE Mirrorphonic to built and set-up a cinema-like audio set-up in your private home. Bet that cost a few nickels, back in the day. |
1960's favorite system. AR turntable w/ Sure $100, Dyna SCA 35 $100, AR4X speakers $100
That $300 today would need a zero added. Today's $3000 system would have much higher resolution.
High end, say K-horns, Mac 275, Marantz 7C, Thorens 124, Grado arm, would cost what, $2500, or in todays terms, $25,000.
The rest of the system would be good value for money today, but who would swap their current turntable for a TD 124? So you turntable/arm/cart guys have made the most progress. |
The rest of the system would be good value for money today, but who would swap their current turntable for a TD 124? actually; the basic guts of a 40+ year old Thorens or Garrard idler, or a 30-40 year old direct drive EMT, Technics, Sony or Pioneer....with a modern arm, improved plinth, and LOMC cartridge can compete on the highest level of tt performance. my Garrard 301 and Technics SP-10 Mk3 are really wonderful tt's in every way. |
..or Garrard idler, or a 30-40 year old direct drive EMT, Technics, Sony or Pioneer....with a modern arm, improved plinth, and LOMC cartridge can compete on the highest level of tt performance.. Sounds for an upgrade for electronics which can show the difference. |
Sounds for an upgrade for electronics which can show the difference. huuuuummmmmmmmmmm. ok, i'll play. like what? |
actually, the basic guts (of vintage tables)...with a modern arm, improved plinth, and LOMC cartridge can compete on the highest level of tt performance. I agree with you, Mike. By now, the idler-drive genre has enough ink on them without me adding anything new to the topic. What is little talked about is the "guts" of direct-drive tables. Many vintage DD units suffered from bad plinth design with inadequate solidity (often mounted to crappy plastic or flimsy particle-board), and isolation from resonance and interference of electronics. I like the bare bone approach, that is, to take the motor out of the chassis/plinth/enclosure and mount it to a something solid, material of your own choice, and extend the cable by at least couple feet to the stock chassis or an enclosure that contains the electronics/motor-drive/control-console/power-supply. In fact, the Monaco Grand-Prix, Teres Certus, or early Micro-Seiki DDX/DQX-1000 takes the same approach. Almost ALL DD tables can be improved this way. Mike have done that with your Technics SP-10Mk3 with the slate plinth, same concept. There are many other brands of superb DD tables with great potential out there can be had for very reasonable price and can be converted this way with good result. I no longer have any Technics tables but I still got great results with many mid-priced JVC, Pioneer, Kenwood, Yamaha, etc... I haven't tried it on Sony and Denon tables yet because they require mounted a tapehead to check platter speed so the mounting is tricky. Modern belt-drive turntables have been doing similar things by separating the motor from the main plinth. Once again, Micro-Seiki was ahead of their time with their RX-1500 and beyond. It's only logical DD will go that direction. The days of having everything in a box for DD tables seems less attractive to me now. Once again, I went off topic from tonearm discuss so I guess I should really create a new thread. Anyway, just a thought. _________ |
High End Audio Industry has lost its way, there's no hope now. Audio actually used to have a goal: perfect reproduction of the sound of real music performed in a real space. That was found difficult to achieve, and it was abandoned when most music lovers, who almost never heard anything except amplified music anyway, forgot what "the real thing" had sounded like. Today, "good" sound is whatever one likes. Fidelity is irrelevant to music.
Since the only measure of sound quality is that the listener likes it, that has pretty well put an end to audio advancement, because different people rarely agree about sound quality. |
Syntax,
that's some heavy s*** for a Sunday. you need to cut down on your Wagner and listen to more Bob Marley. it's springtime, enjoy the music.
cheers. |
Syntax, I could not agree with you more. I disagree only with the implication that because the goal of achieving reproduction that is faithful to the sound of real music was difficult to achieve, the pursuit of that goal was abandoned. The pursuit of that goal was abandoned by audiophiles, not the High End Industry as a whole. I believe that there are still manufacturers that pursue that goal. The problem is that audiophiles not only "forgot" what real music sounds like, but younger audiophiles never learned.
This, ironically, is also the reasons that too much validity is given by some to the idea that because something is technically "better" than something else, then it must be better overall. Not so!
Audiophiles seem less and less willing to accept concepts that are not easily quantified or explained rationally. In an era of so much technical advancement, it is easy to understand why this is so. The problem is that we are talking about music. And music is an incredibly complex, subtle, and organic thing. It expresses human emotions. I find it incredibly arrogant, and not very insightful, that some think that they can fully explain what is going on in music, and it's reproduction, with numbers and technical measurements. In my opinion, to not understand that a certain amount of subjectivity is every bit as valid, in absolute terms, as purely technical analysis, is to not fully understand the meaning of music. |
Syntax, I could not disagree more. I've spent the last 20 years working out what the human hearing/perceptual rules are, and then making sure that our gear obeys those rules. This work is on-going- I am also exploring what Chaos Theory has to say about audio electronics, and have further research showing how important it is for the playback system to reflect human perceptual rules, backed up by some well-known neuro-scientists.
Now maybe I have got my own findings and the like, but I know I am not the only one who is engaged in such research. Its true that there is less research than there was 40 years ago, but it is not true to say that current equipment is made simply to sound pleasing. There is a difference between that and being made to be as good as it possibly can be with the known science. |
